Current trend: selling original CDs but keeping the mp3s

[king ubu]

Hm, my post is in reply to the first question raised by 7/4 in the post preceeding mine - just to omit any confusion.

Generally on the topic, I am still also buying way too many CDs, and I don't see any point in selling them and keeping MP3 copies of the music. My main listening still is with my CD player, I only use the ipod while commuting, sometimes when at work, too, but never at home.

[JSngry]

That's quite simple: get an external HD...

Nope....that's still storage/playback in one.

[JSngry]

In order to make it easy to move files on and off my iPod, I keep the ripped files on external drives and have them all backed up to DVD-R. At almost 5gb each, the DVD-Rs didn't take too long to burn.

The DVD-R option seems as good a solution as any.

[king ubu]

I completely stopped using DVD as back-up media - they suck. The same drive I used to burn them (and I burn slow, 2.4 or 4) won't read them half a year later, and crap like that. CD is still the best, I think, if you don't want to rely on your external drives (which is smart - having everything twice would be smartest, as those external drives sometimes fail, and they don't show any signs of failure, usually, they just die...)

[king ubu]

That's quite simple: get an external HD...

Nope....that's still storage/playback in one.

? sorry, can't follow!

[Noj]

Wow, I hadn't heard of such problems with DVD-R. That sucks. I guess I won't know until I try to use one of them way down the line. I'm not breaking those MFs into CD-Rs, that's for sure.

[JSngry]

That's quite simple: get an external HD...

Nope....that's still storage/playback in one.

? sorry, can't follow!

Storing media on the same type device you use to play it back is combining two "levels" of storage media into one. If the HD crashes, what have you got left?

Would you store the music on your LPs on your turntable platter (if you could?) & then lose the LPs? Of course not.

Same deal. You want to keep/have your actual data kept apart from the playback medium, just in case.

[JSngry]

...having everything twice would be smartest, as those external drives sometimes fail, and they don't show any signs of failure, usually, they just die...)

Yeah, that's what I mean.

[king ubu]

...having everything twice would be smartest, as those external drives sometimes fail, and they don't show any signs of failure, usually, they just die...)

Yeah, that's what I mean.

I overread your earlier post about that before, sorry. To me it's not an issue as I use the external drives simply for storage, not to play the music, at least not so far... if I'd ever consider doing that, I'd definitely go the route of having, say, to 500 GB drives which I'd regularly synchronize. But so far, I only quickly plug the external drives in to put stuff on them or get stuff from them onto the ipod or onto the computer to edit or whatever, never to play things.

[king ubu]

Wow, I hadn't heard of such problems with DVD-R. That sucks. I guess I won't know until I try to use one of them way down the line. I'm not breaking those MFs into CD-Rs, that's for sure.

Well, it's not that this *has* to happen, of course... I have dozens of back-up DVDs, and it got to the point where it got so time-consuming, and when then I also discovered some reading issues, I just decided to cut that madness and burn audio-CDRs (I did back-ups of live shows, my own recordings and torrents of live material, too) and if something just got lost or EAC couldn't extract it any more... well, so be it, I still have several other thousand discs to listen to...

[WorldB3]

I have a close friend who is a music fanatic. Has something close to thousand (or two) LP's and CD's. He is going though all of his CD's keeping the CD's that either have a sentimental value or packaging that requires him to keep them and with everything else he is doing a lossless burn to two hard drives and trading them in to Amoeba. With his credit slip he picks up stuff he thought he would never give a change to because he rips and brings them back for 80% credit, repeat until the credit is all used up.

he feels good about it since he isn't selling them for money and is supporting artists that he might never have before given a listen to.

Edited February 15, 2008 by WorldB3

[JSngry]

...having everything twice would be smartest, as those external drives sometimes fail, and they don't show any signs of failure, usually, they just die...)

Yeah, that's what I mean.

I overread your earlier post about that before, sorry. To me it's not an issue as I use the external drives simply for storage, not to play the music, at least not so far... if I'd ever consider doing that, I'd definitely go the route of having, say, to 500 GB drives which I'd regularly synchronize. But so far, I only quickly plug the external drives in to put stuff on them or get stuff from them onto the ipod or onto the computer to edit or whatever, never to play things.

Ah, but you see, "intent" of use is not consistent with intent of design. HDs are designed to be both "storage" and "playback", whereas other mediums such as CD, LPs, tapes, etc. are designed to be storage only. You can have the information and not have anything on which to play it. If all you have is HDs, when you lose your "playback" capacity, you lose the information simultaneously.

If I'm wrong about this, let me know. If you can repair/replace the stylus/etc. portions of a HD & still keep the data intact, wouldn't that be swell? But is that usually how it goes?

[king ubu]

Jim, I'm not quite sure I understand you correctly, but I try to answer nevertheless.

To play the music that's on the HD, I need to hook, the HD up with my computer - there would be devices (interfaces? something like that anyway, but I'm no tech wise-guy) that would allow to play the music from computer HDs (internal or external, I assume) on your hifi set, but then I have no idea how that really works.

As for saving data from broken HDs, I assume it could in most cases be done easily, but as no one does it, they want a sh*tload of money, and that's not worth it, usually. Hence having two HDs with synchronized contents is the smartest way to go (and if one goes down, quickly get another and copy all that's on the still working one to the new one...).

[Big Beat Steve]

I think I am far beyond. I sold my cds when I found the vinyl. I kept only the cd with some worthing bonus tracks.

Ha! Another one who saw the light!!

[Aggie87]

I have a close friend who is a music fanatic. Has something close to thousand (or two) LP's and CD's. He is going though all of his CD's keeping the CD's that either have a sentimental value or packaging that requires him to keep them and with everything else he is doing a lossless burn to two hard drives and trading them in to Amoeba. With his credit slip he picks up stuff he thought he would never give a change to because he rips and brings them back for 80% credit, repeat until the credit is all used up.

he feels good about it since he isn't selling them for money and is supporting artists that he might never have before given a listen to.

Never the less, he now only possesses illegal digital copies of music - save the ones he's kept on vinyl or cd. That's a lost sale for the artist/producer.

[seeline]

Like king ubu, I have a number of external HDs where I store music.

I'm not sure how keeping MP3 copies of files from a CD that you've sold can be truly illegal - it's not as if you've got the same audio quality in those files, for one.

And it's also not as if, in selling a used CD, the record companies, artists and/or copyright holders are seeing 1 cent of profit from the sale of those CDs. *That* happens only when someone buys a new, factory shrink-wrapped CD.

One of the realities of the internet is that specialist audio/MP3 blogs are supplanting radio - do a bit of Googling and you'll see what I mean. Speaking only for myself, I can tell you that listening to music on some of those blogs has actually spurred me to buy many CDs - and avoid others that I'd end up selling because I didn't like them.

If the industry as a whole would embrace the notion of allowing people to listen before they buy (to more than a 30-second sample, that is), I think they'd be doing themselves - and the artists - a big favor. Lots of independent artists are selling their new releases as downloads (in addition to "hard copy" releases on CD or vinyl). This actually makes their "product" more saleable - with far less overhead!

And some record labels have been making their new releases available to the press/radio as downloads with PDF files (liners) for a while now. (In the cases I'm thiking of, they use file formats that aren't nearly as compressed as MP3s.) This saves the labels a *lot* of money - and yet, the complete release is there. It's a concept that works very well for all concerned, minimizes waste, and still allows for the presentation of the music and liner notes. I'm all for it, and not just for the press/media in general...

Edited February 15, 2008 by seeline

[Aggie87]

I'm not sure how keeping MP3 copies of files from a CD that you've sold can be truly illegal - it's not as if you've got the same audio quality in those files, for one.

And it's also not as if, in selling a used CD, the record companies, artists and/or copyright holders are seeing 1 cent of profit from the sale of those CDs. *That* happens only when someone buys a new, factory shrink-wrapped CD.

A used cd was originally new at one point. So when it was purchased, the artist and producer received the money they were entitled to. The fact that it is re-sold and re-purchased doesn't change the fact that it is one legitimate copy of a recording, and everyone received their entitlement. It's like a car or house being sold and re-purchased - General Motors or your home builder made their money on the original sale.

If you make a digital copy of that item while you own it, that's within your rights. You are the person that is legally allowed that copy of that music. But once you sell it, you can't legally keep the copy. This in effect brings two copies of the music into existence (the original which you've passed on, and the copy which you are keeping), and the artist/producer has only been paid for one.

It doesn't matter if the audio quality of the copy that you've made is different than the original CD.

[Big Beat Steve]

That's a lost sale for the artist/producer.

Not in the case of P.D. stuff.

And not in the case of discs originally purchased secondhand either. (And we are not going to start those fancy debates about the desirability of paying royalties on SECONDHAND sales again?? )

Edited February 15, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[Aggie87]

Not in the case of P.D. stuff.

And not in the case of discs originally purchased secondhand either. (And we are not going to start those fancy debates about the desirability of paying royalties on SECONDHAND sales again?? )

Second hand discs (i.e. used) were originally purchased new by somebody. The royalties and money due to the producers were paid on the original purchase.

I don't think royalties on second hand sales should be legal or even considered.

edit - regarding Public Domain material - that's tricky, because the laws are different throughout the world.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Aggie87

[seeline]

Aggie, I used to be firmly in the same camp as you, before I started doing legal internet broadcasts - and being directly affected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the RIAA and the Copyright Royalty Board. A lot of my idealism about copyright and ownership went right out the window after seeing these big organizations being greedy for profit - for themselves, not the artists.

it changed my entire way of thinking, especially because of the way in which a *very* low-quality audio file or stream is being - in the DMCA - equated with the actual audio on a physical CD. there's simply no comparison between a 32 or 64k "stream" and a CD, at all.

I also saw (very quickly) that royalties were being collected on o.p. recordings issued by labels that have long since died - who, exactly, was getting the money? I seriously doubt any of the artists - or people who owned those labels - got one cent. yet I had to do certain kinds of tagging to enable the RIAA and CRB to collect monies that should, in many cases, have been paid to people in Africa, South America, Cuba, and... I could go on, but won't.

There's something very, very fishy about all of this, and I don't believe the right people are seeing those royalty checks.

I also don't see anyone talking here about the sale of used books - the authors don't see any profits from used material. the only time they (might) get anything is when the book is sold new.

To my mind, there's a lot of flim-flamming written into US law re. copyright, royalties and digital files. (Also about what is legally considered "publication" and what isn't.)

did you know that it's illegal for anyone here in the US to post a transcription of a solo on a BB or web site - even if it's been incorrectly transcribed - without paying royalties/licensing fees/etc.? That's written into the DMCA. It's very unfortunate that the industry and their lawyers refuse to acknowledge how musicians actually work, in real life! Posting chords and tablature is also illegal by default, unless you own the copyright on the material - even if the chords and/or tablature are incorrect.

The law is an ass, in this case, i think.

[WorldB3]

Never the less, he now only possesses illegal digital copies of music - save the ones he's kept on vinyl or cd. That's a lost sale for the artist/producer.

I don't follow. If for example (btw. I am too lazy to do this myself) I trade in 30 CDs I never play anymore for a credit slip that allows me to buy 8 brand new CD's keep a copy on my hard drive, trade them back in within a week to get credit to buy 3 more new CD's I don't see how that is hurting the artist or producer. It seems like the only people its hurting is the record store by taking advantage of the policy they created. At any rate 11 new CD's got purchased within a week.

Edited February 15, 2008 by WorldB3

[seeline]

I don't follow. If for example (btw. I am too lazy to do this myself) I trade in 30 CDs I never play anymore for a credit slip that allows me to buy 8 brand new CD's, if I trade them back in within a week to get credit to buy 3 more new CD's I don't see how that is hurting the artist or producer. It seems like the only people its hurting is the record store by taking advantage of the policy thy created. At any rate 11 new CD's got purchased with in a week.

Exactly.

[Aggie87]

Never the less, he now only possesses illegal digital copies of music - save the ones he's kept on vinyl or cd. That's a lost sale for the artist/producer.

I don't follow. If for example (btw. I am too lazy to do this myself) I trade in 30 CDs I never play anymore for a credit slip that allows me to buy 8 brand new CD's keep a copy on my hard drive, trade them back in within a week to get credit to buy 3 more new CD's I don't see how that is hurting the artist or producer. It seems like the only people its hurting is the record store by taking advantage of the policy they created. At any rate 11 new CD's got purchased within a week.

If you kept digital copies of those cds that you traded back in, they are illegal copies. You don't own the right or license to keep that material without owning a legitimate CD or LP.

The next person who buys one of the CDs you traded in has the legitimate copy that the artist was paid for. You have an EXTRA copy that has been brought into existence, and the artist didn't have any involvement or receive any credit for it.

So two copies of the music exist, and only one had the money go where it was supposed to go - which equates to one lost sale.

Does that make sense?

Edited February 15, 2008 by Aggie87

[Kyo]

I don't follow. If for example (btw. I am too lazy to do this myself) I trade in 30 CDs I never play anymore for a credit slip that allows me to buy 8 brand new CD's keep a copy on my hard drive, trade them back in within a week to get credit to buy 3 more new CD's I don't see how that is hurting the artist or producer. It seems like the only people its hurting is the record store by taking advantage of the policy they created. At any rate 11 new CD's got purchased within a week.

Either way you push 11 CDs in excellent condition into the second hand market

that will possibly be bought instead of new copies (as they're almost as good but

cheaper), thus hurting the artists and the producer after all.

And the copies the guy from the original example keeps are definitely illegal.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Kyo

[seeline]

I'm not sure the used market can be policed, though... Major labels would certainly be very, very happy if they could derive revenue from the sale of used material!

If I purchase a CD, used or new, the actual object belongs to me, and I can dispose of it as I wish. if i give it away, or throw it in the trash, are people being cheated? (I'm not saying this to be contentious; I'm 100% serious.)

Edited February 15, 2008 by seeline